Allahabad HC for the lawyer’s plea for legal taxes of 1 lei for “saving” ex-cji from “insult”

In order, made public earlier today, a bank of Justice Rajan Roy and justice Om Prakash Shukla It refers to the communication of the ministry sent to the petitioner stating that the cases in question, for which they are looking for Rs. 1 crore in legal fees, were actually and actually deposited on its One’s own willand consequently the government of India is is not responsible To confare any expenses incurred by it, including the tax, as it was claimed.

The mentioned communication also added that the Government of India has an extended group of lawyers at the Supreme Court of India to represent the interests of the government and that the petitioner was not included in the group of the Supreme Court of India.

In the light of this communication, the Court rejected the plea as it observed as follows:

“There is nothing in the records that the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Legal Business Department (Judicial Section), the Government of India has ever hired the petitioner for the submission of the six cases, mentioned in plea, therefore, given the reasons given in the communication of 26.7.2024, we find absolutely no reason to grant the prayers. The written petition has no merits and is rejected.“

Moreover, the bank also rejected its prayer for issuing a certificate under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India, because it did not consider it a suitable case for issuing such a certificate.

“… In our opinion, the case does not involve any substantial matter of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution of India, nor does it involve any substantial problem of law of general importance“, The bank noticed as the plea rejected.

Petition in short

In his written petition, the personal petitioner, Lawyer Ashok PandeyHe also challenged the rejection of his representation, which he presented to the President of India on February 28, 2024, requesting Rs. 1 crore for the legal services provided by him in the “rescue” of CJI MISRA since then.

He claimed that his representation was subsequently transmitted to the Ministry of the Union Law, which was rejected by the ministry, and this represented the insult of the President of India.

Before the court, he claimed that it is waterproof for the Ministry of the Union Law to reject the “reference” sent by the honorary president of India. He stated that he presented the representation of the president, because the president is the authority to appoint the chief judge of India.

–President Honble sent me the representation to the ministry to make my payment. Then how can the ministry reject my representation/request/president’s reference? I asked the honorary president to make my payment, because I saved the CJI since then, which is appointed by the president,“He said.

Also Petition on the master of the Roaster issue in the supreme yard helped to establish and maintain the dignity of the CJI post.

For the context, in his plea in 2018, lawyer Pandey questioned the unilateral power of the CJI to constitute banks “arbitrarily” and to allocate the work of different banks. A bank with three judges dismissed His plea in April 2018.

In addition he transmitted in front of the Division Bank that he had filed another petition against the four judges of the Supreme Court who held a Press Conference in January 2018criticizing the CJI since then.

Before the court, he also referred to his letter and petition in SC on the motion of accusation against CJI MISRA, which he claimed was initiated under the leadership of Antonia Maino and Kapil Sibal.

In particular, in April 2018, 71 Rajya Sabha members from seven political parties have signed a notification requesting action procedures against justice MISRA. However, then Vice -President of India and President Rajya Sabha, Vekaiah Naidu, later rejected the opinion, saying he had no substantial merit.

During his arguments, he stated that when he submitted petitions for CJI Misra, people asked how much CJI Misra (for the deposit of petitions).

“CJI MISRA KE LIYE PETITII DAALI TO LOGON NE PUCHA KI MUJHE CJI MUJHE KITNA DIYA? BAIYE KITNI MANSIKTA HAI LOGON KI. MAIN CJI KE HIT MEIN KI THI THI YACHIKA, CJI MISRA PAANE KI APAKE KI APAKE,“Said lawyer Pandey.

He also claimed that he also deposited a petition against the movement to allow Prince Charles to inaugurate Commonwealth games, which took place in 2011 in India.

He argued that, after the issue came to the Supreme Court, the judges asked the Attorney General to look at it, and the next day, the news appeared that President Pratibha Patil would be the one who inaugurated the event and not Prince Charles.

The case title – Ashok Pandey vs Union of Bharat Thru. Sey. President of New Delhi and another 2 2025 Livelaw (AB) 77

Case quotation: 2025 Livelaw (AB) 77

Click here to read/download your order